User talk:Satanoid

International Sikh Youth Federation edits[edit]

Concerning [1], like I said, assume good faith. The article title is on the Tamil Tigers, and if you look at the little box, it says "South Asian groups on the list" and includes the "International Sikh Youth Federation." Best article? No. However, the BBC is clearly a reliable source per policy and we are discouraged from using blogs, so it makes some sense. Next time, just revise the link to a better one. I'll do it right now.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a fan of removing it but we have a very strict policy against any information on living people. Basically, the website as a whole got in a heap of trouble over it years ago and anything about a living person needs a reliable source before we include it. As to the misspelling, you can fix that. Nobody would object to that. Or more properly, nobody could reasonably object to that. And yes, I'm aware that I'm throwing lots of terms and huge policies at you. I've been here over 4 years and it's still difficult for me to get. It's just the only way to keep a project this large in line. Just stay calm and work at it. We really do need people like you to help. Have you thought about joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh extremism[edit]

A few points. First, don't do stuff like this. If you are going to rename the heading, just say you are going to, ok? Don't play the "cleanup" edit summary game. You should be better than that. Second, instead of this, I think you might want to comment at Talk:Sikh_extremism#IPCS_citation. Third, following this, see Talk:Sikh_extremism#Gurpreet_Kaur_Bhatti. I don't doubt the truth of the information, I'm just saying that it seems to put way too much focus on a single individual. I'd rather a "people were scared, including Bhatti who had to cancel her play." Just because something is true doesn't mean it helps adding it. Sometimes less is more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh terrorism[edit]

Satanoid, it is quite clear that you have strong feelings regarding Sikhism. Although I'm not well-informed enough to provide a substantial counterargument to your edits, I think that, given your record, this article bears examination from other editors. It is my opinion that you have a clear conflict of interest in the subject. C1k3 (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear campaign to delete/dilute and debunk all references wrt Sikh extremism whether its from GlobalSecurity. BBC, CBC Times etc. The same editors (esp user:sikh History) who wanted it deleted have been applying the same to me. Its up to admin to go through the discussion pages (including edits on the discussion page) to make an informed decision. Satanoid (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want those sources in the article, discuss them on the talk page. I actually agree that it should probably be split, but let's first get one stable article at extremism and then split off terrorism for more specific examples. At the very least, discuss it at the extremism talk page first instead of posting your version of the same article at the other page. I'm not going to fight it if you insist on restoring it but I hope you would heed my advice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You know what, I'm tired of this. You know full well you never discussed anything of the sort you did here with me. All you did was post this (another assumption of bad faith) which I explained. Creating Sikh terrorism to avoid discussion was enough. When you come back, you will work with others or it will be longer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse on My Page and Response[edit]

Posts like this:

hahahahahahah hahahahaha
And I'm R2D2 - Yeah Right ? Oh Bik (as if) , Don't you think Randip Singh is a nerd ? Why does everyone think Randip Singh is a dork, I've done some research on him and he aint liked much is he lol
http://www.punjabi.net/forum/showthread.php?p=31427 BTW is he the same Randip Singh that gets a lot of flack from sikhsangat.com ??
Satanoid (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

on my page are doing you no favours. For your information Randip did edit here a while ago, but now is active on www.sikhphilosophy.net. I have nothing to hide and nothing to prove.--Sikh-history (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You said your not Randip Singh, so why you so pissed ?

Satanoid, your posts seem to indicate that you are projecting your emotions onto others. Neither the taunting on other users' talk pages, nor your disingenuous (and poorly written) taunts when they reply, show you in a good light. Your behaviour is poor. My statement does not mean I am angry. It means your are behaving badly. No more, no less. sinneed (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your citation question[edit]

I fear I can't understand your question. If a reference doesn't seem to support whatever it is attached to, it is an excellent thing to ask about on the Talk page. Hope that helps. :) sinneed (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas for edits on Wikipedia.[edit]

Ideally, one would make an edit to only a single section, about a single "thing", with each edit. Then, again ideally, one would put in an edit summary that explains what was done, an if it is likely to be contentious, why. In the case of sikh extremism, where virtually every edit is likely to be contentious, this is especially important. Please, small edits, well thought out, well explained.

If you don't understand something, or we other editors are not understanding you (for example, if we keep reverting things that are "obviously" correct), please explain on the talk page... without accusing us of vandalism... without accusing us of being extremists... ideally just explain what you are doing, or what you don't understand, with no emotionally exciting words, no humor. I promise I have no agenda here except to make Wikipedia grow. I can possibly help in some small way with this article. sinneed (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback by Roadahead[edit]

I was not able to revert Roadahead's edit, as there had been edits after that. I am sorry I did not move quickly enough. sinneed (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An edit you made at sikh extremism... not clear to me... nor others, I should think[edit]

Sikh Student Societies at British universities and colleges have also come under the scrutiny and radar for the grooming and radicalization of young Sikhs.

http://photos.merinews.com/catFull.jsp;jsessionid=54CE24FAC9C63304AAFF05FCEDC10D91?articleID=150497

These are not questions for you to answer for me, they are questions for you to answer for you. As the edit is now, I am sure it won't stand.

radar?

"grooming" - good, that is what universities do?
"radicalization" - well, a lot of people feel radicalization is a Good Thing too?

I am not making a connection here. Are they being recruited into a terrorist organization? Which? How are they connected to the subject of the article?

Your prose is too emotional. "scrutiny and radar"... that is just cute wording. It is much better to just say what needs to be said. That kind of wording won't survive.

Hope this helps. :) sinneed (talk) 03:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another[edit]

"...crushed the activities of Sikh terrorists."
Also, the point, led the police in successfully leading the counter-insurgency.
Your words "crushed", "terrorists" are too emotional. What is the point? The point is he, as a police officer, led the counter-insurgency. (I am taking your word and your sources' for that, by the way, I have no knowledge of this subject except what you and the other editors are giving me in the article.)

"Sikh extremists always claim they are being discriminated against."
A generalization... racist. Don't do it.

Again, I hope this helps. sinneed (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008[edit]

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Sikh extremism. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the "form letter" above, I want to note specifically that our recent additions to this article paste text directly from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1975997.stm and http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sikh-politics-canada/index.html. Please review our non-free content criteria to see the circumstances under which you may duplicate text word for word from external sites. Unless you do so under those guidelines, you cannot copy sentences or phrases from other sources to Wikipedia. This is a violation of our copyright policy. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, you have copied from the bbc article the phrase "rooting out militancy from the Indian state of Punjab." You have copied from the CBC news article the phrase "officially listed as a terrorist organization in the European Union, Canada, India, and the United States." You are certainly welcome to add this information to the article, but it either must be rewritten in your own words or clearly marked as literally duplicating another source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those sites have been used as source material since I have been criticised for using the 'crushed', I used the word rooting out, I useed a mere sentence from the sight. I could reword it back to crush buut Sineed says thats too emotional, well oh diddums can you suggest a better word ? How about eliminate, hell yeah thats a good word.

Look, can you take the matter up with sineed, the content is relavant bar the wording, I would have prefer the word crushed, but thats too emotional for some, personally I dont see a problem with the word, its like Margaret Thatcher crushing the Miners, or how about KPS Gill defeated the terrorists ? Satanoid (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't get to use sentences from the site unless we conform to WP:NFC. Again, this is a matter of US law. If you want to utilize language directly from the source, you can do that on occasion if it is necessary, but you have to put it in quotation marks and indicate who you are quoting. When possible, you should rewrite it completely, but if the language is under dispute, then quoting the original may be appropriate, to positively attribute the point of view. As to the content dispute, that is outside of my focus in the article. It was listed as a copyright infringement, and I am currently monitoring it to ensure that all contributors understand our copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already addressed that fragment by proper attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the attributed version, as changing one or two words is not sufficient to separate from source. It can be difficult to revise material to avoid infringement, but generally it's best to completely rewrite text unless you can use it under WP:NFC. With respect to your question, the rules we have with which we attempt to prevent that are WP:NPOV and WP:V. If you think that the article does not meet NPOV, you may wish to request feedback at WP:NPOVN, presuming you haven't already. I can see by its edit history that the article is contentious. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Satanoid (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Stop with the ginourous (Giganitc eNourmous) edits.[edit]

I am reverting that out. I will make **SOME** of the updates, but you must stop this. NOW! It is rude. I have chastised others for it, and you for it, and you Just Won't STOP. Small edits. One section at a time. With edit summaries on every one. You don't have the command of Wikipedia editing to do these huge messy things. Neither do I. Thus, I don't do it. Even if I could, it would *STILL* be rude. sinneed (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring - user:sikh-history, user:satanoid, user:Roadahead at sikh extremism[edit]

I hear you each saying you think one or more of the others is misbehaving. ALL 3 are misbehaving. Stop doing these huge editwar-type reverts. If you don't care enough to give edit summaries, and if you don't care enough to make the individual changes, then perhaps a break from editing this article would be good for you. Please:

edit summaries for every edit - please
if someone makes 5 edits, and you want to revert 3, do... not all 5 - please
if you think another editor is vandalising, say so, in the appropriate forum. Not an edit summary, not on an article talk page. Your talk page, their talk page, or possibly seek a 3rd party who might help

All 3 of you are better than this makes you appear. sinneed (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damdami Taksal[edit]

Why not make that edit yourself? And explain why in the edit summary. And make any other changes that section needs and explain them. THEN move on to another section and edit and explain there. Your edits are a scattered, confusing array of unexplained changes. Some are good, some are awful, some are probably OK, but it is SO hard to figure out why and what you are doing. :( sinneed (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

I've blocked you again for this comment. It is a violation of WP:OUTING. And this following the mess at ANI (please, anyone else, ignore the completely off-path discussion there about User:Cheers dude). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the edit has now been oversighted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Satanoid (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

90.196.3.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Ricky81682

Blocking administrator: not provided.

Decline reason: You were not autoblocked, you were directly blocked. — Smashville^talk 00:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Satanoid for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]